In the upside-down, backward, 1984 Looking Glass world of Jewish-ruled America (and other countries) everything is called the opposite of what it is, and everything does the opposite of what it's supposed to do.

For example, in France, the censorship bureau used to be called "Le Bureau de la Censure", the Censorship Office. Now it's called "Le Bureau des Libertés Publiques" (the Public Liberties Office)!

Similarly, "Family Courts" routinely destroy families, while the "Child Protection Services" love nothing more than breaking up couples and farming out their children for adoption by "gay couples"!

How very trendy! How very Marxist! How very au courant!

There are 2 cases pending now, one in England and the other in Australia, in which interracial "gay couples" are accused of sodomizing up to 5 out of 9 children -- NINE CHILDREN -- entrusted to them for adoption (in reality, for a hell on earth as sex slaves). What the hell else would faggots want them for?

In about 15 years, we can no doubt expect a deluge of class-action lawsuits against the public authorities for permitting these atrocities. You thought the churches had problems? Just wait for the social services.

Rather then help couples stay together, they are encouraged or forced to separate, after which the mummies receive all sorts of bounteous bennies as "single mothers"! Down with the family! Again, how very Marxist.

The case under discussion here simply takes my breath away. Only a Jew could have such chutzpah, such arrogance, such pitilessness. And all in our "kinder, gentler society", the "society that feels your pain"!


I'll let one of the major news services describe it:

Heather Hironimus Released After Spending 9 Days in Jail Over Son’s Circumcision
May 24, 2015
© ZUMA/REX Heather Hironimus breaks down as she signs consent for her 4-year-old son to be circumcised on at the South County Courthouse. ZUMA/REX

© ZUMA/REX Heather Hironimus breaks down as she signs consent for her 4-year-old son to be circumcised on at the South County Courthouse. ZUMA/REX

A Florida woman jailed in a long-running dispute over her son’s circumcision has been released after nine nights behind bars. 

Heather Hironimus, 31, posted bond and was released at 10:18 p.m. Saturday, jail records show.

She’s been portrayed as a martyr by anti-circumcision advocates around the country who have followed her case with rapt interest.

Hironimus and her 4-year-old-son’s father, Dennis Nebus, have been warring for years over whether to have the boy’s foreskin removed. She initially agreed in a parenting agreement filed in court, then changed her mind, giving way to a long legal fight. Circuit and appellate judges have sided with the father.

With her legal options dwindling, Hironimus went missing in February, and ignored a judge’s order that she appear in court and give her consent for the surgery to be performed. A warrant was issued, but she wasn’t located until May 14 at a Broward County shelter where she was staying with her son.

Brought before Judge Jeffrey Gillen on Friday, Hironimus again declined to sign a consent form for the surgery, and she was advised she would remain jailed indefinitely. After the hearing recessed and she reconsidered, she reluctantly agreed to sign, sobbing as she put pen to paper.

Though the signature solved a contempt charge against her, she still faces a criminal charge of interference with child custody.

Lawyers for both the mother and father have declined to comment, citing an ongoing gag order in the case. The parents had a six-month relationship but were never married. The father has called circumcision “just the normal thing to do.”

In court on Friday, the father’s attorney said the surgery had not yet been scheduled, but Gillen gave him sole authority, temporarily, for the boy’s medical decisions, and granted a motion to allow him to travel out-of-state to have the procedure completed.

Mary Hironimus, the woman’s mother, said her and other so-called “intactivists” planned to reach out to doctors around the country to urge them not to perform the circumcision.

Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, which advocates against circumcision, said the images of a distraught Heather Hironimus signing the form to allow the surgery show how she was “bullied” into it and that she doesn’t truly give her consent.

“If anyone finds out the circumstances under which she signed, a doctor would be insane to carry out that surgery,” she said.

From another source:

This is a sad day in America. A child’s life and rights have been adjudicated as if he were a piece of property. A mother has been forced, while handcuffed and crying, to sign a “consent” form authorizing a procedure that is medically unnecessary for a child who has already stated he does not want it done… or lose custody to his Narcissistic Personality Disorder father who has done everything in his power to have his son’s penis mutilated merely out of spite.

The Men Who Have Failed to Protect This Child

The So-Called “Father”, Dennis Nebus

Chase has been let down by his father, Dennis Nebus, who is an immature narcissist, incapable of caring for anyone other than himself.

The Biased, Vindictive Judge Gillen

Chase has been let down by the judge in the matter, who treated this as a property rights and contract law issue rather than an issue of medical autonomy and civil rights. (I thought we had done away with slavery in the United States! Apparently not for male children.) I will have more to say about that judge in a moment.

The Grandstanding but Ineffective and Duplicitous Lawyer, Hunker

Chase has been let down repeatedly by the lawyers obtained to defend his rights. His first lawyer was a debacle (see my previous article for details.) His latest lawyer, Thomas Hunker, waited until Heather was in jail, isolated from her advisory teams, to drop the case. He had a case in federal court.

The federal court judge, Marra, gave him the question needed to determine jurisdiction, “Were the child’s best interests considered?”

The only appropriate and true answer was, “No. The mother attempted to represent the child’s interests but was prohibited from the district court judge who refused to allow any information to be presented about his best interests. The district court judge also refused to appoint a Guardian ad litem for the child.” Slam dunk. The only appropriate and true answer.

But instead, Hunker answered, “Yes,” thereby claiming that Judge Gillen had actually acted in the best interests of the child. Even after this disastrous performance, Hunker seemed to be optimistic about the possibility of having the Federal court take jurisdiction of the case. And then the next day he filed to have the case dismissed with prejudice. Neither Heather nor, possibly, Chase, can ever go to Federal court over this issue of his civil rights, ever.

This was a screw-over of epic proportions. Please don’t ever use Thomas J. Hunker as a civil rights attorney. He took the money of many individuals who were attempting to assist Heather in this legal battle that he evidently had no intention to see to its conclusion.

Back to that Judge…

Ah, yes, Judge Gillen. The man who believes that you can adjudicate a child like a piece of property. I’m a Certified Pediatric Nurse, Judge Gillen, so let me tell you a little something about informed consent for medical procedures, especially elective non-medically indicated medical procedures on minors

I don’t blame Heather one bit. Every safeguard that this country is supposed to have to protect children has been ignored and trampled upon. He has been failed…  but not by his mother. She sees no possibility of changing the outcome and she needs to be able to be there to comfort him.

Quite honestly, by abusing his position in this way, Judge Gillen has demonstrated a complete disregard not only for the child, but for the law. He seems to feel that his position on the bench elevates him above all questioning and gives him the right to bully, intimidate, and even extort parents into doing what he wants them to do. Isn’t extortion illegal in Florida?

The Serious Medical Questions That Are Being Ignored

Chase has already had one serious reaction to anesthesia and he has a relative who has had a serious reaction to anesthesia. This puts him at very high risk for complications from this procedure.

Even more alarming, Chase has keloid tendencies. This is a condition where scar tissue grows abnormally. Read more about it in-depth here – but I will post the most relevant section here:

People who are prone to keloids should avoid cosmetic surgery.

Yup. I will say that again: People who are prone to keloids should avoid cosmetic surgery.

(Note: Examples of keloid scarring. These are very mild cases. Not only are they ugly, they are often itchy and painful. How would you like to have something like this on your penis? - C.P)


These are serious cases. Just in case you hadn't guessed.
Attempting to force unnecessary surgery on a child's penis if there's the risk of anything like this ought to be a criminal felony.
In certain people, these conditions can be triggered simply by tattooing or piercings. - C.P.

(Back to our feature writer):

This is a cosmetic surgery. It is not medically indicated. If he develops a keloid at the surgery site he will be permanently deformed. If he has a complication of anesthesia, he could be in life-threatening danger.

None of this matters to the men above who have treated him like chattel.

Which brings me back to one more point about consent for medical procedures for minors that Judge Gillen doesn’t seem to be aware of:

My heart goes out to this little man and his mom. Maybe someday this country will uphold the 14th Amendment for all minor boys and recognize that because genital cutting of girls without a medical reason is illegal (since 1997), so is genital cutting of boys.

This is a sad day in America. A child’s life and rights have been adjudicated as if he were a piece of property.
A mother has been forced, while handcuffed and crying, to sign a “consent” form authorizing a procedure that is medically unnecessary for a child who has already stated he does not want it done… or lose custody to his Narcissistic Personality Disorder father who has done everything in his power to have his son’s penis mutilated merely out of spite.

From yet another source:
Circumcise your 4-year-old or go to jail
A mother risks all to keep her son psychologically and physically whole
Lifestyle Parenting Florida Circumcision Opinion

By Amy Wright Glenn
PhillyVoice Contributor

Heather Hironimus is one brave woman.

Currently, she faces public scrutiny, the seemingly ruthless legal maneuvers of her son’s biological father and jail time. As I write these words, Hironimus finds temporary refuge with her 4-year-old son in a domestic violence shelter in Florida. Yet, she’s not fleeing an onslaught of physical aggression. Rather, she stands firmly against the court-ordered genital cutting of her 4-year-old son. Yes, you read the sentence correctly. Last month, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Dana Gillen ordered Hironimus to sign consent forms and hand over her son for elective surgery -- or go to jail. And yes, this is America.

Hironimus separated from Dennis Nebus before their son Chase was born. According to Jonathan Friedman, Hironimus agreed to sign any required papers relating to circumcision in their parenting contract. It was Nebus’ responsibility to schedule and pay for the surgery. Years passed. The circumcision question seemed forgotten. Then, when Chase was 3, Nebus made the claim that his son had “medical problems” necessitating circumcision.

Related Read

Saving Chase: Court sanctioned circumcision of 4-year-old halted

Pediatric urologist Dr. Charles W. Flack of Boynton Beach, Florida, examined the boy. Last May, Flack stated under testimony that the boy was healthy and circumcision wasn’t medically required. When asked if he would circumcise his own son in a similar situation, he answered: “If he’s not having any problems, I wouldn’t want to bear that burden if, God forbid, something happened.”

Despite this, Nebus pushed on, arguing that genital cutting was “just the normal thing to do.”

A difficult year of legal disputes, court hearings and medical examinations followed. Despite once agreeing to have Chase circumcised, Hironimus refused to give consent to the elective procedure. Why? Through research, she learned how hospitals make hundreds of millions of dollars a year by selling discarded foreskins to bioresearch laboratories and pharmaceutical companies. She came to understand that the surgery carries significant physical and psychological risks, both for infants and young children. She came to see that the foreskin is an integral part of the penis and plays central functions. She learned the majority of men in the world live intact lives. Like a growing number of American parents, she came to view the routine genital cutting of little boys as medically and morally wrong.

Chase is now 4 years old. He lives with his fugitive mother in a domestic violence shelter because a judge in Florida has ordered the cutting of his penis.

A Child’s Psychology

“This is not a situation where [the child] is a newborn; he is old enough to remember the procedure and what his body looked like before… Removal of part of the most private part of his body could emotionally scar [the child] for the rest of his life.”

--Thomas Hunker, attorney

According to Patrick O’Connor -- a licensed clinical psychologist specializing in the treatment of depression, loss and trauma during childhood and adolescence -- many American attitudes toward children’s experiences of circumcision are “adult feelings being projected onto boys.”

Too often, these projected feelings are far from clear. For example, many circumcised men say, “I’m glad this happened to me,” and many circumcised fathers want their sons to “look like” them. When taken at face value, such statements normalize infant or child circumcision and minimize the physical or psychological risks involved. Yet, if we look more deeply, we can see such sentiments often represent the distorted vision of “reaction formation.”

Reaction formation allows a victim to avoid all feelings relating to a previously experienced trauma and conclude that the trauma was actually good for him/her. Opening up to what is entailed in genital cutting is a vulnerable experience for circumcised individuals. Reaction formation is easier and involves consciously experiencing a feeling that is the opposite of an intolerable emotional state. This may help explain why many men in the United States have a tendency to not only view circumcision positively but also view their own circumcision as “good.”

According to O’Connor, we need to be asking how children actually experience circumcision and not project distorted feelings onto them. Gratefully, a good deal of research on this topic has been done using peer-reviewed psychological methods of inquiry. What does the current literature regarding the psychological impact of circumcision reveal?

Surgeries are “often perceived as traumatic events by children, especially young children,” states O’Connor. This is particularly true when surgeries involve the genitals and/or amputation. Given that circumcision combines amputation with surgery on the genitals, one can expect “a perfect storm of psychological consequences” to manifest. In particular, the circumcision-specific research suggests that children often experience the surgery as “a serious violation of their bodily integrity and develop symptoms that are commonly seen in children who have been sexually abused.”

O’Connor grew up believing that circumcision “must not really be bad” because it was so prevalent. In his late teens/early 20s, he came across information that people were debating the practice, which inspired independent research. Eventually, he watched a video of the procedure being done. This was the turning point.

Earlier this year, O’Connor joined other leading psychologists in composing a letter to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) protesting their pro-circumcision stand. While no health organization in the world advocates for the routine practice of infant circumcision, both the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) currently claim that, for males, the benefits of the surgery outweigh the risks.

Such policy statements stand in sharp contrast to conclusions reached by physician groups in Europe, Canada, Australia, Scandinavia, the Commonwealth and even the United States. Consider this statement by the American Cancer Society: “We would like to discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics for promoting routine circumcision as a preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer. The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers.”

O’Connor doesn’t focus upon the prevention of cancer. Rather, he draws upon his specific area of professional expertise in the CDC letter. Study after peer-reviewed study is cited demonstrating the direct link between circumcision and psychological harm.

For example:

• Medical traumas experienced in childhood result in many of the same “psychological elements” found in children who’ve been abused, such as the experience of loss of control, fear and the sense that the event was punishment.

• Men who experienced circumcision as children exhibit more anxiety, interpersonal problems and depression than those who did not undergo the surgery.
When circumcision is done before the age of 10, boys were at a “significant increased risk” for autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

• Upon interviewing men who were genitally cut in childhood, many viewed the experience as “an act of violence, mutilation, or sexual assault.” Violent sexual fantasies, feelings of victimization and inadequacy can be “consciously and unconsciously linked” to childhood circumcision.

• Boys who were cut between the ages of 4-7 experienced changes in their body image associated with feeling “smaller and incomplete.” They also were at risk for withdrawing psychologically.

• In a study conducted in 2000 involving 1,072 boys who were circumcised in a hospital setting, clinicians found the boys were at a higher risk for having post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than if they had been veterans in the Iraq War.

Tragically, it seems that the research cited above means nothing to Nebus and the court. Gillen referred to circumcision as a “very, very safe” procedure. He refused requests from Hiron us’ lawyers to consider a mental health exam for Chase as well as the appointment of an independent guardian to speak on Chase’s behalf. From the court’s point of view, the parenting contract signed years ago resolves the heated dispute between Chase’s legal guardians. Hironimus agreed to consent to a future circumcision. The father is now ready to schedule the surgery. So what if the boy is 4.

A Question of Rights

When it comes to protecting children from sexual assault, U.S. laws are clear. We affirm a child’s right to physical integrity and condemn the sexual abuse of children. When it comes to protecting girls from genital cutting, U.S. laws are also clear. In fact, it is a felony offense to practice female circumcision, an act illegal in every state. A girl has the right to genital integrity. Her labia and clitoris are not to be cut.

What about America’s boys?

The psychological effect of circumcision on young boys has been proven to be similar to that of sexual abuse. Yet, our laws offer boys no protection on this front. Instead, U.S. laws affirm outdated medical myths and various religious/cultural practices allowing for parents to legally and openly pay doctors to cut the genitals of their sons. Our pro-circumcision attitudes, while slowly changing, not only impact how the penis is presented in medical textbooks but also how legal disputes between guardians with regard to genital cutting are resolved.

“Basically, the judge has told Chase, ‘You do not have a right to your body,’” states O’Connor.

Because most Americans adopt this attitude, O’Connor claims that there would be “more of an outcry” if the case was about a girl whose father wanted to have her cut her hair in a very short manner and the judge ruled in favor of the father -- against the mother and daughter. Does a story about a boy forced to undergo circumcision trouble our collective conscience? It certainly troubles the developing conscience of the child at hand.

Chase “is aware of what is happening and is terrified by the procedure,” observes Hunker. “He is also angry that the procedure is being forced upon him.”
Yes, a 4-year-old is aware. Yes, a 4-year-old can be rightfully angry and afraid. Even Nebus admitted under testimony that, “My son has mentioned things to me that he's scared to have his penis cut off.”

One can hear the voice of a 4-year-old desperately trying to communicate his fears. Of course, his entire penis won’t be cut off – but the most sensitive part of it is at imminent risk of being severed.

“This situation shows that our legal system can be distorted by the cultural bias of the judge,” states Greg Hartley, director of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers. Hartley is currently working with the House Health Committee to persuade Pennsylvania to de-fund Medicaid circumcision coverage – something taxpayers spent $2.5 million on last year. If successful in these efforts, Pennsylvania would become the 19th state to end Medicaid funding for routine infant male circumcision.

“All children, regardless of gender, culture or parental religion, have a fundamental right to all their healthy, functional genitalia,” affirms Hartley.
What if Chase were older? Would that matter? Do American courts uphold the right of older children to refuse the medically unnecessary cutting of their genitals?

Consider the Oregon-based Boldt v. Boldt custody case involving a 14-year-old boy. After converting to Judaism, the boy’s father wanted his son to follow suit and be circumcised, against both the boy’s and his mother’s will. Initially, a male judge ruled in favor of the father. It’s hard to imagine a young teen being forcibly sedated in order to violate his will and cut apart his healthy, functioning penis. The mother appealed, and the case went to the Oregon Supreme Court. In 2009, the court ruled that with regard to the circumcision of boys, American parents have “historically and culturally” made the determination. But, because the Boldt dispute centered on custody, the teen’s feelings about the “invasive medical procedure” mattered. Today, the young man remains intact.

Unfortunately, Hironimus' request for appeal has been denied.

A Mother’s Courage

Safeguarding the well-being of her child is at the forefront of Hironimus’ consciousness, and she has paid a heavy price in her effort to protect Chase. Yes, she has been true to her conscience and courageously responsive to research revealing that circumcision places children at physical and emotional risk. But Hironimus is now a fugitive facing significant legal challenges.

"She doesn't believe she should be incarcerated for protecting her child," states Hunker.

Neither do I. In fact, neither do many thousands of parents, “intactivists” and medical professionals who have rallied on behalf of Chase.

So far, more than $45,000 has been raised by "Chase's Guardians" to fund Hironimus’ legal defense. The money is being held by the national organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision. However, on March 24, Nebus’ lawyer filed a motion requesting the judge to prevent Hironimus, or her lawyer, from accessing these funds. The court has yet to respond to this request. If only Nebus’ dogged determinism could be channeled into nurturing what matters most between parent and child: unconditional love, emotional safety, support and kindness. Clearly, Nebus fully and wholeheartedly endorses the American cultural practice of male circumcision. Yet, knowing that his son is so full of fear, he could set this issue aside and nurture what is most significant. In the end, the relationship between father and son matters much more than the presence of the boy’s foreskin.

If this case was unfolding in nearly any other part of the developed world, Chase’s right to his physical integrity would be affirmed. However, it isn’t an American tradition to grant our boys the right to determine the fate of their own genitals. In a country known for its emphasis on individual freedom and choice, this juxtaposition is striking. It takes a mother’s courage to point it out.

Will Hironimus be able to access the money raised on Chase’s behalf? Will the outdated parenting contract be legally revised? How long can mother and son stay at a domestic violence shelter? Will Chase be placed under general anesthesia, against his will and the will of his mother? Will his penis be cut because “it’s just the normal thing to do”?

Time will tell. Hironimus continues to challenge the court-ordered circumcision of her son. Meanwhile, a frightened little boy and his brave mother await our protection.

Interested in Amy Wright Glenn's work? Sign up for Amy's email newsletters today.

Amy Wright Glenn

COMMENT: By the way, "Nebusch" is a Jewish name, albeit very unusual. The father also goes by the name of "Nevis". He owns a marble and tile company, probably in Boca Raton, Florida, and has big bux$$$. But he only paid $200 a month in child support. A typical kike- C.P.

"Defendant" with kosher kike "defense" attorney, getting sold down the river

(kosher kike judge in his alter ego as God Almighty)



Gillen also issued two "gag" orders -- one prohibiting Heather Hironimus from raising money for her own defense [!], and another prohibiting from ever revealing to her son that she opposed the circumcision, even though the son is already perfectly well aware that she opposed it!

To my mind, this is exactly like a Soviet court prohibiting parents from telling their children that they believe in God.

Who does this schlemiel think he is -- Stalin? Mao? God? (Don't answer that -- yes).

Points to be noted:
Gillen is a Jewish name, AVOTAYNU SOUNDEX 586000, AJK data base,
So is Nebis (Nebus) aka Nevis, AVOTAYNU SOUNDEX 674000, data bases H and Q.
There are hundreds of variants on every Jewish name. I have a law book by a Jew named Nebusch, more commonly Neu-something.
They would all be written 674000.
So is Hunkar (Hunker), the lawyer, AVOTAYNU SOUNDEX 565900, data base Q.
Other points to keep in mind:
That is HER defense attorney forcing her to sign that "agreement".
Lesson 1: Never trust a Jew.
Lesson 2: Never trust a lawyer.
Lesson 3: Never trust a Jewish lawyer.
Lawyers will ALWAYS take your money and stab you in the back. (Sometimes you get a good one who will help you, but it is unusual).
The mother in this case was in the worst possible positon: too broke to move, and too broke for a good lawyer. So she got stuck with a load of typical lawyers: all crooks. So the judge prohibits her from raising money for her defense!
Lesson 4: Always leave the jurisdiction at the slighest sign of trouble.
A lot of people say, oh, I don't have the money to leave the state and go 4 or 5 states away, that might cost me a few hundred dollars, or a thousand, so they hang around, listening to lawyers and all their lies, and end up owing 65,000 or 100,000 dollars to a lawyer, in a far bigger mess than they were in before!
For example: is it a crime for my wife to take the children and go home to her mother, even if it's out of state and I don't know where the mother lives?
No. Not that I know of. Not unless I've got a court order out against her or something like that. It's only a crime once they start dishing out their summonses and subpoeanas and citations and judgements and injunctions and court orders and all that other endless horseshit.
This whole case involves a civil agreement under Florida law. Let them try to enforce a Florida civil agreement in New Hampshire or someplace (if they can find you).
The law works this way: you shoot some guy, but it was an accident, or self-defense.
The cops and prosecutors quote those 3 words, out of context, over and over again, 50 thousand times: "He confessed: I shot him. He confessed. I shot him."
Then your cheap, conniving kike lawyer tells the court and prosecutor exactly what they want to hear, and tries to work some sort of "deal" that almost always amounts to a complete betrayal:
"Well, he shot him, but uh, he's terribly sorry, and uh, he didn't really mean to do it. Is 10 years enough?"
Those bastards twist everything you say into its exact opposite. They can never be trusted to defend you the way you want to be defended.
(As I say, there are exceptions but they are usually very expensive and you can never really trust them).
And example of the endless Jewishness of this whole case:
A message posted on "social media" by some filthy-minded kosher pal of the father, the kike Nebus.
Click here for pic of this filthy bastard:

Well, well, speak of the Devil... whom have we here?

Get thee behind me, Satan...
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me...
but whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me,
it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.


See also:

Satanic Judges Turn America into Soviet Socialist Talmudic Hell 2

-- More to come --

Personal Notes on the Chase/Heather Hironimus Case by C. Porter

This was about a year ago. Since then, I see that Chase was duly kidnaped from his mother, who was treated like a criminal and not permitted to see her child. The kid was then "duly" penis-chopped, and has now developed cancer! At this point, and at this point ONLY, was the mother allowed to see him! He has lukemia.

What this all proves is a) feminists are Jews; b) they do not care about women, or children, or people generally; they hate non-Jews. It's that simple. They just want to destroy.

Wouldn't it be a shame if all the filthy kikes in this case were smeared all over the sidewalk for 2 blocks by some Arab in a semi-truck?

Where are all the filthy muzzies when we need them?

Something wrong here.

- C. P.
11 October 2016